|
Outrail posted:Bury it deep in an area with no mineral or water or anything of interest or value. Don't mark the area at all. Counterpoint : Las Vegas
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Woodburger posted:If it isn't staged that is a pro click. Crazy rear end woman asking the dude she tried to have killed to comfort her. It real. http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/05/13/florida.hitman/
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Jollity Farm posted:Turns out that musical theatre people don't think much of Mike Pence. Who could have foreseen?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
grumplestiltzkin posted:What language from 10,000 years ago do you speak/read? With that in mind, try to figure out what language you'd use to write a warning for someone 10,000 years from now. Hell, the languages we have today can't even agree on whether you should read from right to left or left to right. Written language is practically useless for the timescales that are required for nuclear waste to decay. Well this is America and in America we speak English. If those pussies from the future don't get that, they can get the hell out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
spog posted:Counterpoint : Las Vegas Yes we should just put it all in Las Vegas
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Why not just launch our nuclear waste into the sun? Oh! Or just dump it into that big old trench in the ocean. Either give it all the sun or none of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Why not just launch our nuclear waste into the sun? Oh! Or just dump it into that big old trench in the ocean. Either give it all the sun or none of it. Maybe the sun because we cant afford your mom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Boooo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Why not just launch our nuclear waste into the sun? Oh! Or just dump it into that big old trench in the ocean. Either give it all the sun or none of it. Launching things into the sun is really loving expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Launching things into the sun is really loving expensive. Also when rockets fail they tend to turn a lot of solid matter into gases and particulates high altitudes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Well then it would be everyone's problem, which seems fair. Share the load and all that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Well then it would be everyone's problem, which seems fair. Share the load and all that. If we all build up a resistance to it now people in 10,000 years won't have to worry about it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Pffft, people 10000 years from now will be too busy hunting heretics and trying to find new sacrifices for God King Trumps Eternal Reign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
EDIT: Wrong Thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Rough Lobster posted:A woman tries to hire an undercover cop to kill her husband. Undercover cop stings are pretty funny when people realize just how hosed they are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPG-wmNujZg
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Why not just launch our nuclear waste into the sun? Oh! Or just dump it into that big old trench in the ocean. Either give it all the sun or none of it. I've talked with geologist friends about doing that. Mix it up with concrete and pour it into shipping containers then dump it in the Marianas Trench subduction zone.. It'll sink through a 30-300m of mud and then just sit there. A few hundred years from now it'll be sucked into the earths crust, 1000's of years later when comes back up in the form of magma it'll be heavily diluted and non-radioactive coz half life. Only problem is that's how you get Godzillas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
spog posted:Counterpoint : Las Vegas No-one is mining in las vegas. Just make sure there's no groundwater they'll want to get at .
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Outrail posted:I've talked with geologist friends about doing that. Mix it up with concrete and pour it into shipping containers then dump it in the Marianas Trench subduction zone.. They can hide from Godzillas. Can't do that with radiation. Plus, making Godzillas would be cool. The future us would be like, "Wha? They must have had godlike power to create such things!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
flosofl posted:They can hide from Godzillas. Can't do that with radiation. You mean like our long forgotten ancestors who created the dinosaurs in the Age of Myth?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:You mean like our long forgotten ancestors who created the dinosaurs in the Age of Myth? EXACTLY. Masters of biochemistry those ancients were. It's just a shame they built their entire civilization to be biodegradable so we can't find any trace they ever existed. Except for the dinosaurs, of course. And the Flinstone-Rubble fragments. Think of how advanced we'd be today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:Put the usual biohazard type signs out there warning of danger - then put animal and human bones past the signs all over. Bonus points for adding more and more bones the closer to the waste you get, with signs at regular intervals indicating exactly how much radiation your body is being exposed to (even if it's not true). If anyone doesn't take THAT kind of hint to stay away, they deserve whatever happens. This sounds exactly like the sort of place Fallout's best loot would be found.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
grumplestiltzkin posted:What language from 10,000 years ago do you speak/read? With that in mind, try to figure out what language you'd use to write a warning for someone 10,000 years from now. Hell, the languages we have today can't even agree on whether you should read from right to left or left to right. Written language is practically useless for the timescales that are required for nuclear waste to decay. The language of ART  
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Yeah, see it dosen't matter what it looks like. If it looks interesting people will want to check it out. Humans go cave diving, spelunking, BASE jumping, volcano exploring, into space, deep see diving, bow hunting for Bears and Moose..... Basicaly there's nothing you can do to make something look so dangerous that someone won;t think 'Yeah, challenge accepted ancient dudes'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
me, 10k years from now: "that's badass"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Yeah, all of this is why the eventual best solution was decided to be "bury it underground in an unmarked location, somewhere that no one would have any possible reason to dig", like, say, a mine shaft in the middle of the Nevada desert. Also, unlike launching it into space or sinking it into the Earth's core, this leaves open the possibility of pulling it back out should future technology allow us to process it into fuel again. Uranium refining is incredibly expensive, and the very fact that the spent fuel emits radiation indicates how much energy there still is in the "waste." It's good if it can be safely locked away but not necessarily made totally irretrievable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
What are they keeping in there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Yeah, all of this is why the eventual best solution was decided to be "bury it underground in an unmarked location, somewhere that no one would have any possible reason to dig", like, say, a mine shaft in the middle of the Nevada desert. Yup, any sort of signs or art used to show danger will only grow interest with it or turn it into a religious zone in the future if people die of a strange sickness after traversing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:You're assuming that they speak English or whatever. This sort of waste can be dangerous for 10,000 years. The good news is that the longer something is radioactive, the less radioactive it is. Radioactive waste that is still radioactive 10000 years from now isn't horribly dangerous compared to something that decays to background levels in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:The good news is that the longer something is radioactive, the less radioactive it is. Radioactive waste that is still radioactive 10000 years from now isn't horribly dangerous compared to something that decays to background levels in a few months. When you think about it, that natural uranium was going to be radioactive for millions of years, so we did everyone a favour by digging it up, transmuting it to shorter‐lived atoms, and putting it back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Why not just launch our nuclear waste into the sun? By comparison, to get to the Moon you have to go around 6.5km/s and to get to Mars you need to go around 10.2km/s. All of which is ignoring that you need to go around 10km/s just to get into orbit around Earth. So to drop into the sun, you need a rocket big enough to go 40km/s. That's 89,477 miles/hour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/ebYmw3E.gifv
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
What about just throwing it 'away' in general? Just kind of nudge it off in a direction and let the vast empty distances in space do their thing. edit: This is in response to space trash not charades dicks...
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Takes No Damage posted:What about just throwing it 'away' in general? Just kind of nudge it off in a direction and let the vast empty distances in space do their thing. It won’t just float away. It will continue to orbit the Sun in nearly the same orbit as the Earth. While we have rockets that can do that, it takes shitloads of energy per tonne of waste (with something like a 1% chance of failing horribly and spreading radioactive mist all over the Northern Hemisphere). If you invent a rocket engine that makes this method of waste disposal feasible, you have also invented an engine that makes all other sources of power obsolete. e: Falcon Heavy is supposed to be able to give a slight nudge to 13,600 kg of payload. This rocket so far exists only on the drawing board, but if it does exist will be the most powerful rocket we’ve got. SpaceX is targeting $100 million per launch. The typical nuclear plant produces that much high‐level waste in eight months. Platystemon has a new favorite as of 01:44 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Instead of throwing spent nuclear fuel away, we should just reprocess it into more nuclear fuel. Oh wait, we can't, because Jimmy Carter banned fuel reprocessing in the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Takes No Damage posted:What about just throwing it 'away' in general? Just kind of nudge it off in a direction and let the vast empty distances in space do their thing. First of all, getting anything into space is insanely expensive. Even if you got it up there, your proposal isn't how orbital mechanics works. You can't just "nudge" something into the vast empty distances of space. If something is in orbit of the Earth and you push it away, it'll still be orbit of the Earth. Just a slightly different one. If you "nudge" it hard enough that the Earth is no longer the main gravitational influence, it'll still be really close to the Earth's orbit of the Sun. Plus we don't need a bunch of garbage in space anyway. Combating debris in space is already enough of a challenge. and can you imagine what would happen if a rocket full of nuclear waste exploded while trying to achieve orbit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Instead of throwing spent nuclear fuel away, we should just reprocess it into more nuclear fuel. The ban was lifted in 1981 by Reagan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGgXcyhdUVo
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Met posted:Even if you got it up there, your proposal isn't how orbital mechanics works. You can't just "nudge" something into the vast empty distances of space. If something is in orbit of the Earth and you push it away, it'll still be orbit of the Earth. Just a slightly different one. If you "nudge" it hard enough that the Earth is no longer the main gravitational influence, it'll still be really close to the Earth's orbit of the Sun. Also it'll come back in a few hundred years as a giant space cloud looking for its creator, only this time it'll be radioactive too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:This is unironically something that some scientists are seriously considering: for things like nuclear waste disposal sites, how do you design a warning that future generations and civilizations will take seriously and not as a "There has to be really great stuff inside if they wanted us to stay out!" The problem with this (and this always comes up) is that these discussions bypass the engineers and scientists who say "bury it deep, seal it good, don't put up any special market, and anybody who can get in while it's still dangerous will know what they're doing" for people who want to shame modern society for having the audacity to tamper with elements. The people who know what they're doing have a simple, dull answer; the fearmongers get attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Random Stranger posted:The problem with this (and this always comes up) is that these discussions bypass the engineers and scientists who say "bury it deep, seal it good, don't put up any special market, and anybody who can get in while it's still dangerous will know what they're doing" for people who want to shame modern society for having the audacity to tamper with elements. The people who know what they're doing have a simple, dull answer; the fearmongers get attention. This is like dealing with a snake. 'Holy poo poo a snake!' 'Just leave it alone.' 'But what if it bites us!?' 'Just leave it alone.' We should kill it!' 'Just. Leave. It. Alone.' 'I tried to kill it and it bit me!' '...holy poo poo I'm so surprised that happened.' This is the cause of a stupid amount of snake bites in Australia and I assume everywhere else. There's some bonus schandunfoot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:34
|
|